I've been on a lot of mailing lists over the years, moderated and
not, some with thousands of members, and that majority have always
been lurkers. There are a couple of dozen daily/almost daily
contributors and a few more dozen people who rarely post. The rest
are silent. That's the nature of mailing lists, I think.
Frank
On Jul 31, 2007, at 08:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I'm not sure Frankus. I am confident, however, that this list
will not do anything to try to get members to follow any standards,
or to get the vast majority of those who are silent members to
contribute.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 9:30 pm
Subject: Re: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC
NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION
I'll answer that as well.
Yes, an uncontrolled list is superior to a list in which ONE PERSON
decides what behavior is acceptable. It's also superior to a list
in which that decision is somehow arrived at...well, I'm not sure
how they're going to do it. Are you?
Frankus
Sleek. Edgy. Infinitely flexible.
On Jul 30, 2007, at 08:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I take this that you don't credit my views, and those who agree
with them, that it really is the behavior and not the content. Of
course, it's difficult to define civility, but apparently most of
us agree we can know it when we see it. My question for you is,
do you indeed stand in support of the uncontrolled list, viewing
the poor conduct you agree has occurred as intractable or superior
to the possibility that people will be restricted in some fashion
is they can't act properly?
You certainly have strong views on some things, and are grounded
in actual involvement. If everyone made up a list of people who
are jerks on the list, I don't think you'd show up. You say your
piece without being uncivil.
I don't think anyone would ban you, me or Wilma from a list for
being anti-social, regardless of what we had to say.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: KAREN ALLEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 2:44 pm
Subject: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS
FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION]
I have to respectfully decline joining this list for a number of
reasons, but my primary one is this:
While Melani claims that there would be "civilized" conversation,
what I fear it will actually be is "sanitized" conversation.
While it's true that many unpleasant things get said on this list,
that has been a two-way street. The people claiming to be victims
give as good as they get, and just as often send inflammatory
posts themselves: remember "Serial Liar sends misleading
information"? How about "cheap", "greedy", "slumlords", "Napoleon
complex" "frugal" "fanatic"? A poster in this current thread,
Phillip Forrest, sent an ugly post that suggested that, rather
than his own use of the delete key, Glenn should kill himself, but
somehow that was not viewed as being part of the problem. Isn't
sending information as a front for UCD just as "misleading"?
Couldn't the organized effort to enact the BID with carefully
planted information be just as easily labeled a "conspiracy"?
What I see as a problem is how will "uncivilized" be defined on
the new list. To me it seems that much of what is being claimed is
uncivilized is often a disagreement with the ideas being
expressed. I make no secret of the fact that I don't agree with
the BID or with what I view as Penn and its supporters having an
undue hand in the direction of this neighborhood. That is an
unpopular view among those who want Penn's involvement or who make
huge business profits because of it. I have not been attacked on
the listserv for my opinoins, but I have already been shunned in
person for taking that stance.
My question is this: What is meant by "cilvilized" an
"uncivilized"? Is this REALLY a concern about the tone, or is
there also a concern about the ideas expressed? Would I be banned
for posting things critical of UCD? Or for defending John Fenton
(the post-Malcolm X Park John Fenton, not the pre-Malcolm X Park
John Fenton). Or will the new list be a forum wherein like-minded
people can get together and make unchallenged claiims? Would
Phillip Forrest's ugly suggestion that Glenn kill himself get
Phillip banned?
Karen Allen
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected]
>Subject: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION Re: [UC]
Since the >real reason for the new list is...
>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:28:22 EDT
>
>
>In a message dated 7/30/07 11:45:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > ......Kyle didn't start the UCNeighbor list because he
was being
> > childish or selfish and walking away with his bat and ball. He
started >it because
> > the communication on this listserv is becoming petty, myopic
and >insulting.
> > It's also becoming a crowded room (virtually speaking) with
some loud >voices
> > trying to drown out the once speaking in a normal tone. Some
people do >act
> > like they own this list and like to think that they can
dictate and >frame the
> > conversation and debates that occur here. Many people have
started doing >the
> > serial deleting of [UC]-labelled emails, because it's become
less >relevant and
> > helpful to the average UC resident. I don't know about you,
but this >puts
> > people a hair-trigger away from leaving the listserv and the
community
> > discussion that occurs here. No one is excluded or protected
on Kyle's >new listserv
> > either. You can still take the conversation there, if you want
to, and >your bat
> > and ball.
> >
> > This weekend, the heavy-handed people on the purple list found
out that >their
>readers now have the option to move away, and clearly, they don't
want that
>to happen. So - did they offer to moderate their language and
help >develop a
>set of guidelines? No, they became even more heavy-handed! Several
>attacked Bruce Anderson for suggesting guidelines. Some even
tried to >blame Jon
>Herrmann, who wrote that he had not read the last 13,000 emails
posted on >the
>purple list in the last 15 months - now, that shows how involved
HE is, >doesn't
>it? Some renewed conspiracy theories, one generated new spoof
posts, and >as
>usual, a small but noisy group attacked the person who saw a need
to do
>something and actually DID it.
>
>But, why should we be stuck with a dysfunctional list which will
not >change?
>
>I came in for criticism for saying it would be heaven to be on a
list >without
>one particularly voluminous ranter who has focused on me, sometimes
>alarmingly. Why would I want to be on a list with member who
sends out >fantasy emails
>about what he wants to have happen to me in Clark Park? Why would I
>recommend that the buyers and sellers I work with join a listserv
where >they'd read
>that kind of stuff with my name in it, where a neighborhood
fanatic would
>single me out for ridicule though I've never even met the man? Is
it any >surprise
>I think it will be "heaven" to be on a list where that sort of
email isn't
>likely to be tolerated?
>
>Kyle CAN ban that individual on the new list, but he won't, if
the >individual
>is civil to his fellow list members. Anyone can sign up, and the
archives
>are public, so even non members can read what's written. There's no
>conspiracy and lots of transparency.
>
>I'm afraid that "spoof" addresses have been posted more often
than the >actual
>one for Kyle's new list, so I'll include it again here to
counteract the
>usual poster of misinformation.
>
> http://lists.asc.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/ucneighbors
>
>- Melani Lamond
>
>
>**************************************
> Get a sneak peek of the
>all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's
free from AOL at AOL.com.
=
